First-Line Biological Agents Plus Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Pooled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologicals, in combination with chemotherapy, are recommended as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, evidence guiding the appropriate management of older patients with mCRC is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes in older versus younger patients with mCRC who received first-line biological therapy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used pooled data from five trials undertaken by the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours. All were studies of adults with advanced CRC who received first-line treatment with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, cetuximab or panitumumab, stratified by age (≥ 65 vs. < 65 years). Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 999 patients from five studies were included in the analysis: 480 (48%) were aged ≥ 65 years, and 519 (52%) were aged < 65 years. Median PFS did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years (9.9 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.17). Median OS was significantly shorter in older than in younger patients (21.3 vs. 25.0 months; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.41). There was no significant difference between older and younger patients in ORR (59 vs. 62%). Patients aged ≥ 65 years experienced significantly more treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (61.67%) than did patients aged < 65 years (45.86%). CONCLUSIONS: Biologicals plus chemotherapy is an effective first-line treatment option for selected patients aged ≥ 65 years with mCRC and has a manageable safety profile and efficacy comparable to that observed in younger patients.

Patient preference for oral chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast and lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Although new therapies against metastatic cancer have been developed in recent decades, chemotherapy is still an important treatment option. Prolonged treatment and side-effects are often discouraging for patients, and in many cases, therapy is only palliative, not curative. This study explores patient preference for oral or intravenous (IV) chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast or lung cancer. METHODS: It is a descriptive, open label, multicentre, nation-wide study, in which a 16-item questionnaire consisting of single-choice questions scored on a 5-point Likert scale was administered to patients in a single visit, and another 11-item questionnaire was self-administered by the patient's oncologist. RESULTS: A total of 131 breast and lung cancer specialists at 64 hospitals enrolled 412 patients (lung cancer = 161; breast cancer = 251). To be eligible, patients must have already received IV therapy and at least 2 cycles of oral chemotherapy. Most (77%) patients expressed preference for oral therapy. Most considered their daily life was less disrupted with tablets (70.4%), had no trouble swallowing them (86.9%), and were not concerned about forgetting to take them (56.8%). Half (56.3%) were worried about problems related to drug infusion with IV therapy, 61.7% were concerned about nurses failing to find a suitable vein, and 63.1% were dissatisfied with hospital waiting times. A uniform response was obtained from both samples of patients. CONCLUSION: Convenience, ease of administration, fewer side effects and better quality of life tilt the balance towards oral drug administration.

First-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI in colorectal cancer with multiple or unresectable liver metastases: A randomised, phase II trial (PLANET-TTD).

BACKGROUND: In first-line wild-type (WT)-Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), panitumumab (Pmab) improves outcomes when added to FOLFOX [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan]. However no trial has directly compared these combinations. METHODS: Multicentre, open-label study in untreated patients ≥ 18 years with (WT)-KRAS mCRC and multiple or unresectable liver-limited disease (LLD) randomised to either Pmab-FOLFOX4 or Pmab-FOLFIRI. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end-points included liver metastases resection rate (R0 + R1), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events and perioperative safety. Exploratory end-points were: response by RAS status, early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) in WT-RAS patients. RESULTS: Data on 77 patients were analysed (38 Pmab-FOLFOX4; 39 Pmab-FOLFIRI; WT-RAS: 27/26, respectively). ORR was 74% with Pmab-FOLFOX4 and 67% with Pmab-FOLFIRI (WT-RAS: 78%/73%). Out of the above, 45% and 59% underwent surgical resection, respectively (WT-RAS: 37%/69%). The R0-R1 resection rate was 34%/46% (WT-RAS:26%/54%). Median PFS was 13/14 months (hazard ratio [HR] Pmab-FOLFIRI versus Pmab-FOLFOX4: 0.9; 95% confidence interval: [0.6-1.5]; WT-RAS:13/15; HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.3]). Median OS was 37/41 months (HR:1.0 [0.6-1.8]; WT-RAS: 39/49; HR:0.9 [0.4-1.9]). In WT-RAS patients with confirmed response, median DpR was 71%/66%, and 65%/77% of patients showed ETS ≥ 30%/ ≥ 20% at week 8, without significant differences between arms; these patients had longer median PFS and OS and higher resectability rates. Surgery was associated with longer survival. Perioperative and overall safety were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 neutropenia (40%/10%; p = 0.003) and neuropathy (13%/0%; p = 0.025) in the Pmab-FOLFOX4 arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with WT-KRAS mCRC and LLD, both first-line Pmab-FOLFOX4 and Pmab-FOLFIRI resulted in high ORR and ETS, allowing potentially curative resection. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two regimens. (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00885885).

Current controversies in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer.

The factors affecting the decisions for the treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are related to the patient, the tumor, and the treatment itself. Both cetuximab and panitumumab are anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody options for patients with RAS wild-type tumors. Several trials comparing these agents with bevacizumab are analyzed in this paper. The liver is the most common site of metastases in patients with CRC, and perioperative chemotherapy has been shown to yield benefits in this setting. In the second-line treatment for mCRC, maintenance with bevacizumab after progression following first-line treatment is convenient in some groups of patients with mCRC. Also, aflibercept has demonstrated benefits in response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival in second-line treatment, whereas regorafenib provides benefits to patients progressing on all standard therapies. Several novel therapeutic options for patients with mCRC are under development, and these are discussed.

Role of Kras status in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a TTD group cooperative study.

BACKGROUND: In the MACRO study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomised to first-line treatment with 6 cycles of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab followed by either single-agent bevacizumab or XELOX plus bevacizumab until disease progression. An additional retrospective analysis was performed to define the prognostic value of tumour KRAS status on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: KRAS data (tumour KRAS status and type of mutation) were collected by questionnaire from participating centres that performed KRAS analyses. These data were then cross-referenced with efficacy data for relevant patients in the MACRO study database. KRAS status was analysed in 394 of the 480 patients (82.1%) in the MACRO study. Wild-type (WT) KRAS tumours were found in 219 patients (56%) and mutant (MT) KRAS in 175 patients (44%). Median PFS was 10.9 months for patients with WT KRAS and 9.4 months for patients with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0038; HR: 1.40; 95% CI:1.12-1.77). The difference in OS was also significant: 26.7 months versus 18.0 months for WT versus MT KRAS, respectively (p=0.0002; HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.23-1.96). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that KRAS was an independent variable for both PFS and OS. Responses were observed in 126 patients (57.5%) with WT KRAS tumours and 76 patients (43.4%) with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0054; OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis of the MACRO study suggests a prognostic role for tumour KRAS status in patients with mCRC treated with XELOX plus bevacizumab. For both PFS and OS, KRAS status was an independent factor in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Phase II study of preoperative radiotherapy and concomitant weekly intravenous oxaliplatin combined with oral capecitabine for stages II-III rectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A prospective phase II study was conducted to assess the clinical activity and tolerability of oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and radiotherapy (RT) for neoadjuvant therapy of stages II-III rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed stages II-III (T3-T4 and/or N+) resectable rectal adenocarcinoma were eligible. Capecitabine was administered at 825 mg/m(2) twice daily for 5 days/week and oxaliplatin at 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 weekly for 5 weeks starting the first day of RT (before RT). RT consisted of a total dose of 45 Gy delivered in 25 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 days per week, for 5 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included (35 male, 10 female, median age 62 years). TNM Stage was T3 in 43 patients and T4 in 2. Twenty-eight patients had suspected nodal involvement. The intended chemoradiation treatment was completed in 94 % patients. Grade 3/4 toxicity included lymphocytopenia (6 patients), diarrhea (4 patients), emesis (2 patients), asthenia (3 patients), anorexia (1 patient), and hepatic toxicity (1 patient). Grade 1 neurotoxicity occurred in 18 patients, Grade 2 neurotoxicity in 3, and Grade 1 palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia in 2. Forty-two patients underwent surgery (complete resection 95 %, sphincter-saving operation 55 %). The overall pathologic response rate was 83 %, with a pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 11.9 % (95 % CI 4.0-25.6). CONCLUSIONS: The pCR rate observed with oxaliplatin plus capecitabine and RT did not reach the pre-specified criteria of efficacy in this trial, which is in line with recent results of randomized phase III trials.

Circulating tumor cell count is a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors study.

BACKGROUND: The Maintenance in Colorectal Cancer trial was a phase III study to assess maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. An ancillary study was conducted to evaluate the circulating tumor cell (CTC) count as a prognostic and/or predictive marker for efficacy endpoints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty patients were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after three cycles. CTC enumeration was carried out using the CellSearch® System (Veridex LLC, Raritan, NJ). Computed tomography scans were performed at cycle 3 and 6 and every 12 weeks thereafter for tumor response assessment. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival (PFS) interval for patients with a CTC count ≥3 at baseline was 7.8 months, versus the 12.0 months achieved by patients with a CTC count <3 (p = .0002). The median overall survival (OS) time was 17.7 months for patients with a CTC count ≥3, compared with 25.1 months for patients with a lower count (p = .0059). After three cycles, the median PFS interval for patients with a low CTC count was 10.8 months, significantly longer than the 7.5 months for patients with a high CTC count (p = .005). The median OS time for patients with a CTC count <3 was significantly longer than for patients with a CTC count ≥3, 25.1 months versus 16.2 months, respectively (p = .0095). CONCLUSIONS: The CTC count is a strong prognostic factor for PFS and OS outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0-53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.